Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? (which was archived but then restored to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
5. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

Would an admin (or admins) close:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement
2. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

For the second RfC, the creator wrote:

I want to add here that I'd like the RfC to remain open for 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved admin, not one involved in previous discussions about fair-use images please. I'm requesting this because this issue is affecting several content contributors, and it's likely to continue being contentious unless it's sorted out by clear consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 3 on that list closed. NW (Talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare, for closing that RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No point to attempting to close #1 on that list. A brief review of that RfC shows that it is nothing more than a collection of ideas & thoughts on the matter. In other words, any conclusion a closing Admin would make must be no consensus, even though I feel it has reached the point of trench warfare, with furious sallies that gain a meager few yards at best. (Anyone else reminded of Passchendaele?) Better to allow the RfC to continue, if only to allow the various parties to vent away from the usual places. -- llywrch (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have stricken the RfC from the list. Thank you for taking a look at it. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Some RFCs that could do with closing

• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F
  • Launched 10 May 2011
• RfC on whether images of historical importance must themselves be the "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use for them
  • Listed 4 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• Poll to gain consensus on use of hyphens and dashes in relation to a request for arbitration
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• RfC on improving account security
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011

Not necessarily an admin job, but this seems the conventional place to ask for closures. Rd232 public ^talk 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The account security one has seen a few additional comments today, so perhaps hold off on closing that one for a couple or days more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The dash drafting poll says it is supposed to remain open until the 16th. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Several more recently archived RfCs:

• RfC on a proposed new exemption from the three-revert rule
  • Listed 8 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011
• Proposal to establish a minimum prep-time for main-page blurbs
  • Listed 22 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011

Cunard (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption

  Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs) for closing several of the proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security and filing bugzillas for them. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Help request: Diacritics in surnames

Hi. I've noted that an user has moved some titles of sportsmen to a version without diacritics per WP:AT. Due to the fact that the old titles have not only one edit i've started a requested move on 3 pages (1st, 2nd, 3rd), but they are more than 3. So i request, if possible, the move of this titles to their original name (with diacritics): Eero Vare to Eero Väre; Toni Kiren to Toni Kirén; Stepan Kores to Štěpán Koreš; Juha-Pekka Pietila to Juha-Pekka Pietilä; Timo Lindstrom to Timo Lindström; Jiri Hunkes to Jiří Hunkes; Rastislav Spirko to Rastislav Špirko and lots more... The reason of this reguest is that the usage of usage of diacritics, in names (and not only), seems to be the standard adopted on enwiki (see for example: Category:Finnish ice hockey players, Category:Czech footballers, Category:Polish footballers, Category:Spanish footballers etc...). Also in the name of famous people as Lech Wałęsa or Alexander Dubček. Thanks a lot. Sorry if it's not the right page to add this request. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DerBorg. The place where you can separate and post these requests is at requested moves. The page provides simple instructions on how to request a move discussion on the article page and on the RM page. Hope this helps! Keegan (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I noted in the last AN/I thread on Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that the user games the system by intentionally creating page histories for his redirects to block non-admins from moving the target articles. Another user noted inappropriate speedy tagging that was also related to the user's crusade regarding diacritical marks. He ignored the complaints but did stop while the discussion was ongoing. Now he is back to his old tricks, and has even started making contentious moves and blocking the reversion of his moves as well. It's quite obvious by now that Dolovis simply will not conform to community norms and practice, so a ban from any kind of gaming of the system (through page moves, redirects or speedy tags) is necessary, with escalating blocks. Prolog (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of this disruption, lvl4 warning issued. Will ask for a ban on Dolovis moving articles at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:ANI#Page move ban for Dolovis. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus of the community, Dolovis is now banned from moving any pages. This has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandoncrabtree

See their talk page. Either some personal problems or a prank. NVO (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the individual may be a US veteran who has a cochlear implant and a mental health problem (which would be a sad eventuality), based on the fact that the name he uses (Brandon Miles Crabtree) is a conflation of two of the advisors to the Veterans program - Brandon Miles Tourtilot and Mike Crabtree (see [1]). Commons are going to delete the images as the uploader does not have copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens every few months. Unfortunately I can't explain what is going on without violating policies. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Email me privately if it would help. In the meantime, I will delete the page/block the user if this is a recurring problem and you think it would help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you send the userpage to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1#Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that it may be best not to close the Australian football (soccer) player CfD until the requested move at Talk:Association football in Australia is closed. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion for a RM closure

I closed the move discussion at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj#Requested move, where it was proposed to move six Slovenian ice hockey player articles from diacriticless names to ones with diacritics. My evaluation was that there was no consensus in the discussion for the proposed names, but since two people have questioned the closure on my talk page I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look at the discussion and provide a second opinion. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't WP:HOCKEY want articles at titles with diacritics when they occur in the persons name? Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they do, and I think they have a pretty good argument, actually. In fact, I might have closed it differently myself. But I can't bring myself to say that Jafeluv's close was unreasonable or improper; his weighing of both sides' arguments looks fair, even if I might have weighed them differently. 28bytes (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFC regarding diacritics likely will be closed as "no consensus". If and when it closes as "no consensus", should we be following the WP:Hockey#Wikiproject notice compromise? HeyMid (contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus that already exists in the Hockey project in many ways already trumps other RM's ... unless one changes the consensus in the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seems to disagree with that premise... Jenks24 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The move request at Talk:Goody's_Family_Clothing has been open for 8 days with one support. I doubt anyone's going to oppose it at this point, so should it be carried out? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hello? Anyone here? All I hear is crickets... crickets... crickets... (listens to own voice echo). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WHERE IS EVERYONE?!?!?!?!! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Busy waiting to see how long it would take before you lose your mind and throw a coniption. --Jayron32 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's seemingly the only thing that successfully stirs admins from their slumber. I've seen sloths move faster. After drinking a gallon of freaking NYQUIL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, really? Can you get more uncivil? Wikipedia has no time limit, and calling admins a bunch of meth-affected sloths pretty much undoes so much of the good work you actually do. Seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order. meth is a stimulant (aka "speed") and tends to make people work faster (albeit with horrific side effects). NyQuil is a depressant and tends to make people sleepy and lethargic. Know your drugs! --Jayron32 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• If I'm reading things right, this was just relisted on the 12th, and there was one oppose that was made after your request, but before your "crickets" comment. So I don't think it's a slam dunk anymore, and discussion should continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it didn't continue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please created protected talk page

Talk:Januar Add {{album}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please create a redirect

 Done
From ᴀ (IPA) to Open central unrounded vowel. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As it is written, so shall it be done. TNXMan 13:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw delete request

I started a delete request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stars_in_astrology

From the responses it is clear that the issues that initially concerned me are being addressed and the page has already been developed past the point where deletion can legitimately occur, so I was advised to come here to ask an admin to close it. Thanks and sorry for putting folks to any trouble. Zac Δ talk 12:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Aron

Would an admin review my redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Aron and close the discussion? Cunard (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Good call --Errant ^(chat!) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Cunard (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin to close a few discussions please

It has been requested at WP:AE that an admin "close" a few discussions, to help determine what the consensus is. The relevant discussions are:

• Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#The_conclusion_of_the_Ernst_2007_review_is_not_being_represented
• Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#QG.27s_proposal_to_change_the_article
• Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_33#Changes_needed_in_the_LEAD
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Pseudoscience
• Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_14#RfC_-_problematic_paragraph
• Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_14#Poll_for_consensus_on_use_of_Matute_et_al._source
• Talk:Chiropractic#Are_we_dropping_the_Ernst_review_too_soon.3F

I hope this noticeboard is an appropriate place to request this, and that if it is not, that someone will notify me on my talk page. If the request is completed, I would also appreciate being notified. Thanks, DigitalC (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a history of deleting sourced text against policy. You replaced sourced text with OR.

There a more relevant discussions. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Mass_original_research. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_complaint_source.

The sourced text about public health matters is supported by the mainstream source per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT policies.

The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:

"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. This is indeed about the topic pseudoscience according to the source. For example, "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the source pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is WP:OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.

From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

As a point of fact, there are hundreds of WP:V-compliant sources on the subject. However, the Matute source is peer-reviewed and should be given WP:WEIGHT. The text and source meets WP:SOURCES. It would be a violation of NPOV to imply a serious dispute where there is none. The text does not need to be attributed becuase editors disgree with researchers. I think that a summary of Matutue et al. does contribute a lot to Pseudoscience#Demographics, Pseudoscience#Psychological explanations and Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The text passes V and sourced text can be restored again with help from administrators here. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

pseudoscience: I am offering a cmt by DreamGuy which is still relevant to the current personal disgreement with reliable sources. Do you accept the text is sourced from a reliable peer-reviewed source. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff. These diffs show I did explain the text is relevant to other editors. Do you accept that with certain articles editors are unable to justify their edit. For example, an editor wrote The source does not support the claim(s).. But I did provide V on the talk page. Does anyone agree the edit did not match the edit summary. I think this is a serious matter of WP:WEIGHT and I propose the dispute be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Wikipedia policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research.

If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source too.

chiropractic: I did not delete the report from chiropractic article and the source is still in the body. I removed the text that failed verification, however.

vertebral artery dissection: Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) This source is not relevant to VAD (WP:COATRACK) while editors are unable to provide V for the text that is OR.

I might have convinced editors that the text is closer to NPOV version and possibly better.

Ernst E (2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". Int J Clin Pract. 64 (6): 673–7. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02237.x. PMID 20518945. I propose to replace the coatrack source with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose a possible compromise that might resolve the dispute over the public healh issues at pseudoscience.

This part of the proposal is for the WP:LEAD to summarise the body: The British journal of psychology stated "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

This part of the proposal is for the Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The British journal of psychology stated "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

No editor can claim anymore that the text is unsourced when we quote the source. The quote was streamlined and rewritten but the text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil and borderline wikistalking admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have much respect for admins and for the additional work they voluntarily take on. Several of my longtime colleagues are admins. I have never had cause in over six years to suggest an admin behaving in less than a proper manner. But I am afraid that now I must.

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has been, first of all, needlessly uncivil to a fellow editor, User:Monkeys 9711, who himself has been civil, admonishing him with needless nasty phrases such as "patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk you placed there." When I was asked to voluntarily help mediate a discussion between those two editors, and in good faith took time and effort to do so, I was slapped with, "Your advice is useless." (Please see thread here.)

But that is minor compared to what happened next. I explain in this copy, below, of a post I have placed on Future Perfect's talk page:

I am dismayed that Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I noted as speaking uncivily to another editor and to me ("Your advice is useless"), has taken to retaliation by essentially Wikistalking me to compile a list of my image contributions that in his opinion do not satisfy non-free FUR. I would point out that unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, then his opinions are, by definition, amateur opinions, and before any deletions are done to what I consider careful attempts at FUR that we have an unaffiliated third-party admin weigh in. Unless Future Perfect at Sunrise is a copyright attorney, his absolutism is unwarranted — as is his personally chasing down my contributions after I posted something with which he disagrees.

I do not believe — and I'm sure you feel the same way — that simply because he is an admin that he has the right to be uncivilly rude and nasty to other editors. I also do not believe that, as a peer no better versed in copyright law than any other editor, that being obstinate and refusing to countenance any view other than his own is warranted. (Side note: While I am not an attorney, I am a professional in the publishing industry, and in the single example under discussion at the above thread, I can state that a professional experienced with fair use can reasonably differ with his opinion.)

The most troubling thing, however, is that this admin's response to what he perceives as criticism. He has chosen to go after the contributions of one specific editor, with whom he has had no dealings or heard reports of bad behavior. The timing is not coincidence — leaving aside the rightness or wrongness of his position on my contributions, his going after me now, specifically, appears to be vindictive and retaliatory. This has a chilling effect, to say the least.

This is my case. I hope I have presented it straightforwardly and fairly. I thank you for any consideration you may give this matter. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion today since FP's talk page is on my watchlist from an unrelated comment I left yesterday. I agree, FP could have been more diplomatic than describing your advice as "useless" since it was obviously a well-intentioned attempt to broker a compromise between two editors. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of wikistalking, though; it's natural to look at someone's contributions when they stop by your talk page. I can understand how it would be alarming to comment on someone's talk page and then see them delete or nominate for deletion some images of yours, but I think we have to assume that FP did so in a good faith belief the images were not compliant with our policies, unless there's some reason to think otherwise. 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that mediation is difficult. I've never tried it in a formal setting, although I've done so informally. I think one of the principles is to avoid introducing your own position; rather, attempt to get the parties to identify their positions, in the hope that a clear articulation of each position will help identify where there is agreement and where there are differences.

My reading of your comment:

And given that the image shows the characters posing, statically, in a scene not in the film, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include an actual production still that illustrates the movie itself and not simply one of its marketing and promotion posters.

is that you aren't asking either party to identify whether one is enough or perhaps more than one is acceptable, you've indicated that it is reasonable to include more than one.

My (admittedly limited) understanding of the NFCC rules is that this statement doesn't follow from any of the guidelines. However, let me not get into my understanding of the rules at this time, let me simply observe that you didn't ask the two parties to identify their position on the acceptable count of images, you introduced an assumption that more than one is acceptable.

I think FPAS objected, in stronger language than was necessary. I understand why you would be taken aback, your intention is to find a middle ground, and your comments are being called "useless", but again, my understanding is that you are not supposed to be looking for a middle ground, you are supposed to be facilitating a discussion by the parties, if not to each other, at least to you.--SPhilbrickT 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, when I read this statement, "When I was asked to voluntarily help mediate a discussion between those two editors," I assumed that both editors agreed you should mediate. However, a recent statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise suggests my assumption was in error. I just read Wikipedia:Mediation, and it isn't as clear as I would like, but my impression has always been that it is a waste of time to presume something is mediation if both parties haven't agreed. (Which is not to say that a third party cannot contribute, as I am trying to do, simply that the process should not be called mediation unless both have accepted the mediator.) Do you think I am mistaken on this point?--SPhilbrickT 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In formal mediation, I agree with you. Informal, by definition, is not subject to formal rules. I've been asked by one party or another to mediate informally many times, and have often helped people in dispute meet each other halfway. I can see now that I probably should not do so, since it opens me up to all sorts of unpleasantness. That's a shame.

However, I do believe that his saying, "Don't join these kinds of debates if you don't want the scrutiny" is nothing less than a threat: To suggest that editors not try to help each other because someone may then open an investigative file into their activities crosses a line. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And as well, there is no reason for an admin or anyone else to insult others or treat other editors with obvious contempt; not just me, but at least one other editor. That is simply not right, and I'm sorry to see it's apparently being considered acceptable. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you won't stop trying to help others simply because of one unpleasant outcome. I don't think you should even stop trying to help out when one person asks, and the other doesn't. My very narrow point is that I wouldn't call it mediation if it is a one-sided request. I'm not happy with the tone of FPAS, nor with the decision to look at you images at the time of the dispute. I made a suggestion regarding the second that was rebuffed, and I can't push it, because I'm not sure I'd accept the proposal ( but I thought it was worth asking.) I do wish the tone was better.--SPhilbrickT 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think FPAS has the right of the argument, but could certainly be more civil. The NFCC discussions seem to bring that out for whatever reason. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of mediation on Wikipedia (I was even a member of MEDCOM once along with helping with the cabal), and while there aren't any "rules" for informal mediation, if you "pick a side", it's not mediation at all. If you want an idea on how mediation works (in real life as well as on Wikipedia) just take a look at our article. In some cases, if the disputants agree to it, the mediator may make suggested compromises based on their own opinion, but even in those cases (evaluative mediation) the mediator is impartial.

Keep in mind that mediation on Wikipedia, whether formal or informal, is a process where all people involved come to an agreement about how to resolve the dispute. It's not enforceable in any way. If the mediation doesn't start with every participant agreeing to participate, how do you expect them to agree about anything else? It sounds like you weren't asked to mediate, so much as to act as an advocate (and there's nothing wrong with that). By the way, you shouldn't let this experience put you off, if you have interest in mediation there are always cases at WP:MEDCAB looking for level-headed, experienced people to help out. I found it rewarding, the only reason I no longer do it is because it's so time-consuming. -- Atama頭 23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is sad to see such a comment coming from an Admin. "Your advice is useless" especially when, as 28bytes states "it was obviously a well-intentioned" and I don't how Wikistalking coould be even mentioned. Just my 1 cent. Mlpearc powwow 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Resolved by motion:
Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Proposed community ban of User:KnowIG

I am proposing a community ban on KnowIG (talk · contribs) due to his excessive sock puppetry, harassment, and article ownership of tennis-related articles. To date, KnowIG has abused over a dozen sock accounts and has engaged in a pattern of severe harassment against others who touch any tennis-related article out there. –MuZemike 00:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, on the basis of the extensive socking and other poor behavior. 28bytes (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support due to his constant disruption, nastiness and generally non-constructive presence here. His RfC came to nothing, his first block of a month came to nothing, repeated ANI threads came to nothing; he is clearly not capable of being a decent member of the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 08:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)